Previous 50 / 67 Next

Tan Cheng Bock v AG [2017] SGCA 50 be brought into force on or after its commencement, but all such laws shall, subject to this Article, be construed as from the commencement of this Constitution with such modifications, adaptations, qualifications and exceptions as may be necessary to bring them into conformity with this Constitution. Person holding office of President immediately prior to 30th November 1991 to continue to hold such office 163.—(1) The person holding the office of President immediately prior to 30th November 1991 shall continue to hold such office for the remainder of his term of office and shall exercise, perform and discharge all the functions, powers and duties conferred or imposed upon the office of President by this Constitution as amended by the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (Amendment) Act 1991 (Act 5 of 1991)… [emphasis added in italics and bold italics] 98 Arts 160 and 162 (among other provisions) refer to the “commencement of this Constitution”. Narrowly interpreting “this Constitution” in these contexts to mean the present iteration of the Constitution would simply be illogical and unworkable. As for Art 163(1), the portion emphasised above is a clear instance of the words “this Constitution” being used to refer to an earlier version than that which existed at the time the provision was introduced into the Constitution, which in that context was the Constitution as amended by the 1991 Amendment. This demonstrates that the words “this Constitution” in Art 163 need not refer only to the latest iteration of the Constitution. 99 Hence, in our judgment, the correct and applicable interpretation of a person “elected under this Constitution” in the Art 2 definition of “President” is a person who has been elected under the Constitution as it was from time to time since its date of commencement – that is, 9 August 1965 – and specifically as it was at the date on which the Presidents concerned were elected. It is neither restricted to Presidents elected under the current iteration of the Constitution as amended after the 2016 Amendment nor restricted to Presidents elected after the 1991 Amendment. Instead, the definition covers Presidents who were 49

Select target paragraph3

● ● ●

Tan Chen Bock v. Attorney General

Judgment

Question Presented: Whether the reserved election clause solely permits choosing from the terms of office of Presidents elected by the citizens, or also includes those chosen by Parliament.

Alleged Acts: The case comes before the court on Art. 19B(1) and 164. Art. 19B(1) introducing a reserved election where the office of the President is reserved for candidates of a particular community if no person from that particular community has held office for the five most recent terms of office. The law defined community as Chinese, Malay, Indian, and other minority communities. Three individuals held the office for five terms and were not Malay. Therefore, the 2017 election was reserved for a candidate from that community. The appellant argues that this does not apply to those candidates elected by Parliament, but only to those elected by the people, which would not reserve the office for a Malay candidate.

Procedural history: The appellant filed suit in the High Court seeking voidance of Art. 19 and 164. The High Court dismissed the application on July 7, 2017. The appellant appealed to the current court and the Court heard the case on expedited basis because the Government sought to issue a writ of election for the next presidential election. The appellant appealed the case stating that lower court erroneously stated that “President” applies to those both elected by the people and Parliament, that the last term of President Wee was set as the first term in the five, and that President Wee was elected by the citizens.

Summary: The court determined that the appellant’s argument was one based primarily on the text of the constitution. The Constitution defines a President as one elected under the Constitution, not necessarily those elected under 2016 Amendments. The appellant argued that only Presidents that underwent the prior reform process may not be counted or considered Presidents. However, the court rejected this because the legislative intent was not to preclude any of the previous Presidents under this and create an unworkable standard. Parliament has the authority to determine what “five more recent terms” means under the Constitution.

Conclusion: Parliament had the power to specify that President Wee’s last term was the first term in the five term count. The court dismissed the appeal.

Legal Issue(s)

Candidate Registration

Region: Asia-Pacific

Country: Singapore

Language of Decision

English

Court: Appellate Court

Election Type: Presidential

Date of decision: Aug 23, 2017

Geolocation

Latitude: 1.289765826

Longitude: 103.8511735

: Geolocation

Primary Documents

tan-cheng-bock-v-attorney-general-2017-sgca-50-(amended-on-131017)-pdf.pdf
English
Download View

Election Judgments - IFES

Select target paragraph3

Tan Chen Bock v. Attorney General

Primary Documents

Notifications